The Hayflick Limit and the Bible, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 1-11-2005 @ 05:50 PM by CogitoErgoSum1

Just curious if this means anything to anybody, but in reading the bible I noticed in Genesis 6:3 god limits mans life to 120yrs. I was reading this the other day and then it struck me that the Hayflick Limit (The finite number of divisions of which at cell is capable) coinsides with this.

The Hayflick Limit split for humans its roughly 50 times. This puts us at a maximum of 120yrs just as the bible states. Now you can call it luck or whatever you choose, but this science was not available during the time period in which the bible was written. I find it hard to believe that out of pure coincidence the life span of humans realistically was “predicted” or told in the bible over 2,000 years ago. I have to admit my curiosity is peaked!

[edit on 1-11-2005 by CogitoErgoSum1]

reply posted on 1-11-2005 @ 06:29 PM by Graystar

I thought the 120 years was the time period given to men in noahs day. In other words, 120 years warning of the coming flood.

But i could be wrong.

[edit on 1-11-2005 by Graystar]

reply posted on 1-11-2005 @ 10:04 PM by Nygdan

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
The Hayflick Limit split for humans its roughly 50 times. This puts us at a maximum of 120yrs just as the bible states.

[
A cell doesn't divide once a year. The lifespan of an organism and the splitability of a cell have nothing to do with one another. The limit also applies to cells in culture, not cells in the organism. The cells that make up man's body are constantly dividing and replicating.

the life span of humans realistically was “predicted”

But the life span wasn't predicted, people've lived past 120 years

The cellular senessance and aging have nothing to do with one another, so any similarity in numbers is meaningless and coincidental. Its just two numbers that match, they have nothing to do with one another.

I'm not so sure that G6:3 is talking about a limit on the lifespan of every human, especially since there are other people in the bible that lived longer than 120 years.

genesis 6
1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with [a] man forever, for he is mortal ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

Seems to be in relation to the noah account and the bit about the nephilim.

reply posted on 2-11-2005 @ 12:00 AM by Byrd

120 years is probably not the upper limit for humans. There are people who are older than that (a very few) but as our medicine and nutrition gets better, we see people who are easily living to 100 or more.

We look younger at an older age now. People of the 1930's who were in their 60's look comparable to people in their 80's today. They looked old and worn out long before their time. If you look at photos of people from primitive tribes, you will see how badly they age. People in their 40s in a primitive society look 20 years older than a 40 year old city dweller.

One shouldn't take the Bible's notions of age to heart any more than we take the Sumerian Enumma Elish's declaration that people lived to be 80,000 years old.

reply posted on 2-11-2005 @ 10:37 AM by CogitoErgoSum1

122 years – Current Lifespan Record

The only verified case of a human to live beyond 120 years was Jeanne Calment. She was a Frenchwoman who died in 1997 at 122 years.

I know medical breakthroughs, way of life and diet contribute to longevity, but at the time this would have been written the average life span for humans was around twenty years of age. Not going off biblical stories of people living longer than 120yrs of age I find it interesting that this “predicted” number rings true, as of right now there is only one verified human that has lived beyond 120yrs as stated above. The fact that humans are living longer means nothing to me because we are gradually achieving our “set” lifespan according to the Hayflick limit. I’m not even looking at this from a religious stand point, I am looking at ancient writing that tells of a set life span for humans that wasn’t discovered until 1961 by Leonard Hayflick and Paul Moorhead that is human cells derived from embryonic tissues can only divide a finite number of times.

reply posted on 2-11-2005 @ 11:19 AM by Nygdan

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
I am looking at ancient writing that tells of a set life span for humans that wasn’t discovered until 1961 by Leonard Hayflick and Paul Moorhead

They did not discover a limit on the human lifespan.

that is human cells derived from embryonic tissues can only divide a finite number of times.

In culture. Not in the living human organism.

reply posted on 2-11-2005 @ 11:50 AM by CogitoErgoSum1

The Hayflick limit is the limit of the maximum number of cell replications that a human being (or any species). When you can't replace your cells anymore, you die. And Leonard Hayflick calculated that number for a variety of species, and for human beings it was 120. I don’t see how this doesn’t make sense. It’s the reason why hamsters generally live for a couple years or why dogs only live for a certain length of time all species have a limit on how many times their cells can replicate themselves before they start to die off.

I understand this test was conducted in a cultured environment so you are free from diseases, mutations or anything else that would hamper cell replication. Bottom line is your cells can only replicate themselves so many times. This has been proven, however I am not including gene manipulation or anything of that nature to extend human life.

[edit on 2-11-2005 by CogitoErgoSum1]

reply posted on 4-11-2005 @ 06:06 PM by mattison0922

It's funny... the things that drive you over the edge and force you to post in ATS again....

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
The Hayflick limit is the limit of the maximum number of cell replications that a human being (or any species). When you can't replace your cells anymore, you die. And Leonard Hayflick calculated that number for a variety of species, and for human beings it was 120.

CES1, I believe that Nygdan understands what you are saying very well. His point is that the Hayflick Limit was determined for cells in fficial&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:culture" target="_blank" class="postlink">culture, that is suspended in medium. This is a distinct situation. Technically what the Hayflick limit describes is the number of times cultured cells will divide without being immortalized. The simple fact of the matter of is that human cells can divide more than 50 times. I’ve got a couple of lines of human kidney cells that have divided hundreds of times. HELA cells, a cell that can be purchased from any vendor, were harvested from a woman named HEnrieatta LAck, and have been grown in culture longer… well probably longer most ATSer’s have been alive. I think embryo to adult is something like 23 cell divisions alone. Your skin cells divide one whole heck of a lot more than 50 times. What about sperm? Sperm cells are produced daily… how do you think they arise?

Admittedly HELA and other immortalized cell lines are not in a ‘natural’ genetic state, but then again neither were Hayflick’s cells in culture.

The point is this: The number of times a cell will divide in culture implies nothing about how many times it will divide in an organism.

I don’t see how this doesn’t make sense. It’s the reason why hamsters generally live for a couple years or why dogs only live for a certain length of time all species have a limit on how many times their cells can replicate themselves before they start to die off.

When an organism dies is related to the number of times a cell can divide, but this is not likely dictated via some type of chronological bookkeeping. One of the primary things that controls this is the state of the cells genetic information, including, but not limited to: Telomere length, unrepaired ‘nicks’ in DNA, repression/activity of certain genes, oxidative damage, and overall cellular health as a function of ‘feast’ and ‘famine’ conditions. Cells grown in culture are more likely to see all types of genetic damage.

I understand this test was conducted in a cultured environment so you are free from diseases, mutations or anything else that would hamper cell replication.

LOL… Culture environments free from disease!!! Apparently you’ve never grown Mammalian cells before! Mammalian cells are tough to grow, they get infected by everything, E. Coli, mycoplasmas, etc. I’ve been in labs that have literally had to stop work for months because they couldn’t resolve contamination issues.

Contamination issues aside, no environment is free from mutation, especially the cultured environment. I don’t want to get into a big discussion about mutation here (saving it for the ‘Origins’ threads when I can commit to getting back over there), but a culture environment is not ‘free from mutation.’

Bottom line is your cells can only replicate themselves so many times. This has been proven, however I am not including gene manipulation or anything of that nature to extend human life.

Bottom line is that post-differentiation many mammalian cells are programmed to divide rarely or not at all. Other cells however continue to divide as a necessary function of their existence (think fficial&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:Hematopoiesis" target="_blank" class="postlink">Hematopoie sis). What Hayflick found is not directly applicable to cells in vivo.

How does this mesh with the findings that have increased lifespan of C. Elegans? Is C. Elegans somehow immune to the concept of Hayflick’s Limit?

Anyway… and again not to change the topic of this thread, I thought Noah lived to be like 900 or something….

[edit on 4-11-2005 by mattison0922]

Pages: ^^TOP^^